There's no guarantee that the transactions he was making, whilst absolutely paralytic, were done in good faith. They could bring him beers, ask for his credit card, he thinks "pfft, $10-$20 tops", but he gets back in the morning he sees that it was $500 a drink, and they ran it through twice, or maybe even 3 times for the one drink, whilst no where in the bar does it say beers are $500.

If a dance is $300 there's no way he had nearly 100 of them. He was just ripped off because they saw he was drunk so could take advantage and ramp up the prices.

Many moons ago I had a brief gig as a B girl in a strip club in the Quarter. I was broke but walked out the second night I was there after learning what the place was all about.Get 'em in, get a credit card, blah blah.

Theaetetus:Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

...and would a credit card payment count as a 'contract'? I think it should be payment under false pretences, or something, because they used the fact he was drunk to overcharge, probably repeatedly, for something he may not even have wanted.

AbbeySomeone:Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.

Why don't we go out drinking -just you and me. I'll ply you with liquor, women, cocaine whatever you want. The next day you will have signed a contract that you don't remember signing and I'll hold you up to it.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.

Why don't we go out drinking -just you and me. I'll ply you with liquor, women, cocaine whatever you want. The next day you will have signed a contract that you don't remember signing and I'll hold you up to it.

Sounds fair? I wonder what the judge will do.

Fantastic. I prefer young, hot boys as long as I don't have to deal with their drama. Cocaine? Nah.Methinks you don't have a real good law savvy. The Judge will do whatever he is bribed to do, and if he is not corrupt he will abide the law which will cancel drunken/impaired contracts.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.

Why don't we go out drinking -just you and me. I'll ply you with liquor, women, cocaine whatever you want. The next day you will have signed a contract that you don't remember signing and I'll hold you up to it.

Sounds fair? I wonder what the judge will do.

It could easily be worse than that. They may have given him rapenol or whatever it's called. He's the second guy this has happened to.

In Minnesota, at least, serving alcohol to a a person who's visibly drunk is a crime. At the very least, the bar should lose its liquor license.

1. Provide potential "mark" with lap dances, women and promises of "happy endings".2. Slip drug into drink and ring up CC with things he didn't purchase when he passes out.3. Leave him back at the hotel.4. Profit.

Because People in power are Stupid:Why don't we go out drinking -just you and me. I'll ply you with liquor, women, cocaine whatever you want. The next day you will have signed a contract that you don't remember signing and I'll hold you up to it.

Sounds fair? I wonder what the judge will do.

Can I have that offer?

I bet I can make the cost of doing business less than profitable for you...

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)

Well now wait...how many times have we seen bars and bartenders get in major trouble because they over-served a patron who was later involved in a drunk driving wreck? Bars can be held liable but judge's ruling may cause a bit of a legal stir.

'There is no duty upon (Hustler Club) to protect the plaintiff from the results of his (voluntary) intoxication.'

So, which is it? Does this now mean bartenders can keeping feeding you drinks until you get alcohol poisoning and not be held liable? Can they suddenly decide to start serving you ultra high end liquors and charge $500 a shot after you're so drunk you can't even decide for yourself?

Something tells me this judge doesn't really get out much or live in the real world.

AbbeySomeone:Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.

Don't even need to go there. It is a crime for a bar to serve alcohol to a person they know to be intoxicated. Therefore all the drinks he consumed after being drunk were illegally provided and you cannot validly contract to do an illegal act. Furthermore since the bar had to commit a crime to get him to the point where he consented to the 300+ lapdances it would be against public policy to enforce the "contract" he made for those services.

Unless they have video of him (I'm sure they have camera's in there) this should have been a very easy win for him. $28k is one hell of a bill for one night at a strip club. Did he get the all night treatment by every girl in there.

What's interesting is that a person who's drunk/drugged can claim they were sexually assaulted because they were too intoxicated, yet they can't claim there robbed or defrauded because they were too intoxicated?

I always wonder how this would work with an age of consent nexus: If an 18 year old (in California for example) is very drunk and a 17 year old has sex with them, who's guilty of a crime? The 17 year old for having sex with someone unable to consent, or the 18 year old for having sex with a minor because being drunk is not an an excuse?

Superjew:DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

I would love to see a woman try out this line of defense. It would be very illuminating. Anybody care to speculate on how that might play out?

Are you trying to turn this into a rape thread? I am not a fan of rape threads.

It's art. Sexy sexy art. In the case of the pics posted. Now throw in a few c-section scars bad ink and clear heels and it gets sad (not that it still can't be a good time). But the stuff posted is quality.

LaraAmber:Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)

In answer to your questions. It not only makes the skin appear more taut (and therefore youthful), but that type of flexibility usually speaks to some amount of physical fitness indicating not all the work will need to be done by you. From personal experience though no. Women that are that flexible tend to be smaller (and bonier, sharp knees, etc...) in size, which isn't always that comfortable. As far as body building chicks go... nobody wants to sleep with someone with bigger biceps.

Superjew:DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

I would love to see a woman try out this line of defense. It would be very illuminating. Anybody care to speculate on how that might play out?

Tricky to say. Do we have any examples of a woman who's been drinking who consents to something, later regrets it, finds someone else to blame, and gets them into legal trouble?

Let's see... If a girl goes into a bar, is overserved to the point she blacks out, and wakes up to discover she was gangbanged by the patrons, she has a strong criminal case. But a guy goes to a bar, is overserved to the point he blacks out, and wakes up to discover he's been financially gangbanged by the bar - and he's expected to just live with the shame and damage.

LaraAmber:Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)

The one with the young lady bent the wrong way is a little unsettling. As for limber poses the idea of the new and exotic have an appeal. Just like a new outfit, toy or scenario

DammitIForgotMyLogin:I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

Theaetetus:Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

That isn't what Lucy v. Zehmer says. That case is in law school text to illustrate the fact that the intent to contract is based upon an objective test. That is, if a reasonable person observing your behavior would assume that you intended to enter into a contract, then you will be held to have the requisite intent even if you subjectively did not intend to enter a contract.

In simpler terms, Lucy v. Zehmer means you can't sign a contract while appearing to be serious, then later get out of it by saying 'Heh, I was only joking,' even if you really were only joking. It's your outward conduct that matters, not your internal thoughts.

Lucy v. Zehmer would have little application here, because this isn't a case about whether the person had a subjective or objective intent to contract. It would be about whether or not he had the capacity to contract at the time of the agreement. Given the facts described, that case will turn largely on whether or not voluntary intoxication is a valid defense in civil cases in this jurisdiction. Lets look at that, shall we?

The Restatement (2d) of Contracts § 16. Intoxicated PersonsA person incurs only voidable contractual duties by entering into a transaction if the other party has reason to know that by reason of intoxication

(a) he is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction, or(b) he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction.

If what this person alleges is true, and it took place in a jurisdiction that follows the Restatement rule, he would not be liable.

So yes, there's at least one person in this thread that needs to take a remedial contracts class. But I don't think it's the person you were talking to.

The only time I have ever had a credit card lifted and actually used was after going to the Gold Club in Atlanta back in the late '90s when I was working an IT gig there. They had bought gas and used it at a mall. Thankfully I got it all back.